FB has like 900M+ unique active users, G+ is now at 350ish million. Twitter is behind it.

I was kinda surprised, so I went back and got myself active again. And I once again forgot how much better I like it than FB. So many people are doing hangouts now, from the athletic department at my alma mater during signing day to my favorite trance/house DJs.

And just about everyone I follow on FB has a G+ account, too. From sports teams to DJs to political figures et al.

I think it's a bit premature to call it a failure. A FB killer it is not, but it's not floundering at all.

That just seems silly because as OC pointed out earlier (or was it someone else?). It might be said that the iDevices sold precisely because they *weren't* following the same familiar desktop UI paradigm.

Just as likely that they sold because iDevice .

Well, at least the unwashed masses you guys like to talk about so much.

I'm sure a lot of the technologically inclined liked the quick access to small bits of things.

I did, too - but now I like the ability to do more desktop-like-things on my phone. Not that they look and feel like desktop apps - but that some very powerful desktop features are now possible on phones.

FB has like 900M+ unique active users, G+ is now at 350ish million. Twitter is behind it.

I was kinda surprised, so I went back and got myself active again. And I once again forgot how much better I like it than FB. So many people are doing hangouts now, from the athletic department at my alma mater during signing day to my favorite trance/house DJs.

And just about everyone I follow on FB has a G+ account, too. From sports teams to DJs to political figures et al.

I think it's a bit premature to call it a failure. A FB killer it is not, but it's not floundering at all.

Has Google starting reporting real G+ numbers, or is it still that bullshit where they're counting people who "interact with G+ enabled properties"?

That just seems silly because as OC pointed out earlier (or was it someone else?). It might be said that the iDevices sold precisely because they *weren't* following the same familiar desktop UI paradigm.

Just as likely that they sold because iDevice .

To quote RyanS, Because Apple.

The iDevices have a reputation and brand identity that cannot be separated from their success.

Quote:

Well, at least the unwashed masses you guys like to talk about so much.

I'm sure a lot of the technologically inclined liked the quick access to small bits of things.

I did, too - but now I like the ability to do more desktop-like-things on my phone. Not that they look and feel like desktop apps - but that some very powerful desktop features are now possible on phones.

And the same will happen on iDevices if that is the necessary step to keep selling them; that, or they stop selling if it is in fact necessary and they fail to gain that functionality.

So when it came to the functions, and tasks the millions upon millions of iDevice users regularly engaged in, faster, easier, more approachable, and perhaps more intuitive [than their desktop] had nothing to do with it? Gothcha.

I did, too - but now I like the ability to do more desktop-like-things on my phone. Not that they look and feel like desktop apps - but that some very powerful desktop features are now possible on phones.

That brings up an interesting point. Is there any data regarding things users do with their iDevices that they never did (or seldom did) with their traditional desktop/laptop?

That just seems silly because as OC pointed out earlier (or was it someone else?). It might be said that the iDevices sold precisely because they *weren't* following the same familiar desktop UI paradigm.

Just as likely that they sold because iDevice .

To quote RyanS, Because Apple.

The iDevices have a reputation and brand identity that cannot be separated from their success.

No, and I was very specific with this. You cut off the other part that goes with this: Well, at least the unwashed masses you guys like to talk about so much.

There are a ton of people who buy the most popular products because they are the most popular products. Period. Apple has as much of this as MS does or Google or anyone else.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, at least the unwashed masses you guys like to talk about so much.

I'm sure a lot of the technologically inclined liked the quick access to small bits of things.

I did, too - but now I like the ability to do more desktop-like-things on my phone. Not that they look and feel like desktop apps - but that some very powerful desktop features are now possible on phones.

And the same will happen on iDevices if that is the necessary step to keep selling them; that, or they stop selling if it is in fact necessary and they fail to gain that functionality.

Yes, and I predict these things will come.

People are not static. They don't just stay the same and like the same thing and never change.

Though, it makes it all the more amazing how MS dominated the field in the desktop space. Probably because computing was so new. Now that so many people are used to it and grew up with it, we won't see the same thing play out in mobile.

FB has like 900M+ unique active users, G+ is now at 350ish million. Twitter is behind it.

I was kinda surprised, so I went back and got myself active again. And I once again forgot how much better I like it than FB. So many people are doing hangouts now, from the athletic department at my alma mater during signing day to my favorite trance/house DJs.

And just about everyone I follow on FB has a G+ account, too. From sports teams to DJs to political figures et al.

I think it's a bit premature to call it a failure. A FB killer it is not, but it's not floundering at all.

This is exactly what ZZ, and Ryan don't seem to understand. Ryan seems to want what amounts to a super-flat, super light device that is essentially only a "screen" that ranges in size from 5-inches to oh . . . I don't know 30-inches? (think that's large enough to carry around comfortably, guys?), and runs TODAY"S SOFTWARE the same exact way as it runs on a traditional desktop.

Oh, I understand this perfectly well.

What you won't accept or interact with is that this self-same revolution also comes with substantial limitations.

There are many things I can do with a mobile device that a PC realistically cannot and will not.

When I'm on the move, I consult my phone with regularity to find the nearest store that I need. Even if I had the PC with me, it's ridiculously clunky in such a role. So, in such an application, I am with you all the way. It's silly to use a PC for it. Nor am I looking for PC software running under PC rules. I want to do that one with my fingers.

The problem is, fellows like you won't let it go at that. It's your new shiny and you refuse to recognize that the converse is true.

For instance, save for a few adepts like Orange Cream, typing on these things is painful and docking is not a complete solution to it (nor one that is routinely used anyway). I remember well that when the iPhone first came out, we had thread after thread about how we are all going to dock our iPhones. Sometimes, we still see it. Now it is mostly docking iPads and, to date, it is mostly not happening.

This converse problem is particularly true with regards to some design decisions Apple made that, while reasonable in 2010, are holding back the product today.

It is a logical fallacy to presume that just because there's a new shiny, it all must change.

Some of those problems that Apple created for itself happen to match what happened on the desktop, but the desktop is not thereby mobile's enemy. Rather, some things, such as opening a godddam interchange file have been part and parcel of every computing revolution, possibly accepting deeply embedded devices and probably not even many of them.

Just because we have a new shiny doesn't make all of Apple's design decisions correct. Just because we have a new paradigm does not mean that, just because Apple is currently hobbling it, that any given hobbled feature is suddenly is rendered less practical and useful.

Truth is, if Apple hadn't siloed its applications, nobody here would have though twice about file managers, data interchange, and sharing data.

Now that Apple has, most people seem to pay limited attention to the real meat, the siloing, and spend all their energy trying to convince me that something as basic as showing me some files is bad, just because Jobs was too hard over on his notions of appliance computing. As if that were the big issue.

Apple got a great deal right. As I write this, it looks particularly likely that touch/mobile and PCs should be essentially disjoint (see? I'm with you again). But, being disjoint does NOT mean that the mobile revolution will come to fill all roles. This is doubly true when Apple has put in at least one major aspect of the experience that's downright hostile to things that just plain need to be done to displace certain roles.

Nothing is easier than opening a file. All the rest of the counter-examples and "solutions" amount to wishful thinking (we've had whole subthreads on alleged amortizations that Apple isn't building) or clunky services that won't be universally provided. We don't have to guess at this; it's mature enough now that it is not a good bet to assume it never gets much better unless Apple does the obvious thing and relents (e.g. with a /share directory or something).

If it doesn't, we can expect there to be functional deficits in Apple's version of mobile that its hungry competitors are already "not having". How much it amounts to remains to be seen. But, to the extent you want mobile to displace PCs, rooting for Apple' silos is simply the wrong bet. Shared files will get you there years faster and it may be without said sharing, you never even get there.

Hey, I don't call them unwashed masses, I think of them as normal people, even if I'm not one of them.

In a separate post I listed probably a good dozen examples of things that did not gain complexity, but instead got replaced by something more general that gained additional functionality.

The PC, in my eye, is one device that is not making the cut; you don't use a PC (or PC like product) as a home entertainment center, you don't use a PC for your gaming console, or your smartphone. My point is that despite the unprecedented flexibility of the OS, Microsoft has failed to make it actually flexible enough to be useful outside of a handful of form factors; desktop and laptop.

By that standard, OC, Linux and maybe WinCE are the big winners, because they are a strong force in the Embedded marketplace and those go damn near everywhere, from car braking systems to toaster ovens.

That brings up an interesting point. Is there any data regarding things users do with their iDevices that they never did (or seldom did) with their traditional desktop/laptop?

I don't have data, but things like augmented reality apps are completely unsuited to traditional PC form factors. There's plenty of astronomy apps that really play well to phone/tablet strengths. I also see a lot more people watching video on their phones/tablets on the train than ever did with laptops. They're also displacing printed comics and magazines (I don't have direct data for this, but a pretty reliable source for the magazine claim).

That brings up an interesting point. Is there any data regarding things users do with their iDevices that they never did (or seldom did) with their traditional desktop/laptop?

I don't have data, but things like augmented reality apps are completely unsuited to traditional PC form factors. There's plenty of astronomy apps that really play well to phone/tablet strengths. I also see a lot more people watching video on their phones/tablets on the train than ever did with laptops. They're also displacing printed comics and magazines (I don't have direct data for this, but a pretty reliable source for the magazine claim).

It's much nicer reading manga on a tablet than on the laptop. It's also stupid easy to grab screen caps from my favorite rips on the iPad.

The critics will be disappointed to discover that Surface Pro is in fact flying off the shelves, at the least the 128 GB version.

If it sounds too good to be true, just read the comments. It appears that of the 2,000 or so Best Buy and Staples stores, there may not have been a lot of inventory, as in none. Microsoft stores have been selling out, too, as well as online, but I have to wonder why more units weren't available.

I blame ineptitude, rather than a conspiracy to create Apple-like lines for a new product. It's kind of a shame, though. As Thurrott so glaringly obviously states, "they could have sold even more if they could have delivered more to stores." Certainly, a press release Monday citing a million units sold over the weekend could have put some real shine back on the already tarnished Surface brand.

Still, if demand actually is strong and Microsoft can get product to market, a flubbed launch won't matter. Still yet another opportunity missed, though.

The critics will be disappointed to discover that Surface Pro is in fact flying off the shelves, at the least the 128 GB version.

If it sounds too good to be true, just read the comments. It appears that of the 2,000 or so Best Buy and Staples stores, there may not have been a lot of inventory, as in none. Microsoft stores have been selling out, too, as well as online, but I have to wonder why more units weren't available.

I blame ineptitude, rather than a conspiracy to create Apple-like lines for a new product. It's kind of a shame, though. As Thurrott so glaringly obviously states, "they could have sold even more if they could have delivered more to stores." Certainly, a press release Monday citing a million units sold over the weekend could have put some real shine back on the already tarnished Surface brand.

Still, if demand actually is strong and Microsoft can get product to market, a flubbed launch won't matter. Still yet another opportunity missed, though.

The whole "create artificial demand" conspiracy has always puzzled me as I've never understood why people believe a company selling a product would do this. It seems highly counter intuitive to me that pissing off potential customers could ever be seen as a good strategy.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that the reason for the low inventory is that Microsoft crunched their numbers and just honestly didn't expect for there to be any demand for the Surface in the face of such entrenched and strongly branded competitors.

I wonder if the projected sales of the Surface Pro were based on the reception Surface RT has had in the marketplace. If so, it doesn't bode well for the RT, but it does say something positive about the tech savvy of those contemplating a Windows tablet. They knew better than to buy into a platform without an ecosystem.

How else would you explain Microsoft shipping a max of two units to each Best Buy? If the Surface ever sells really well Microsoft will announce numbers. To do so now would only bring comparisons against the iPad and they get enough ridicule as it is.

The Surface is Microsoft's direct response to the iPad. Just as the Kindle Fire and the Galaxy Tab are Amazon's and Samsung's.

All three companies get a pass on disclosing sales numbers, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Yes, you and I may think that. Microsoft doesn't have to admit as much though. The same way Apple doesn't have to admit that the Apple TV is Apple's direct response to the XBox or PS3 as a digital hub. (By the way, they are on record as saying the Surface was thought up way before the iPad was, so believe it, don't believe it etc)

My point is there is no discernible advantage to giving analysts the ammunition for bad press.

Besides which it would appear the law allows it so it's a bit like asking why are Apple allowed to never reveal what they are working on.

Perhaps they are already punishing the stocks of those companies for not releasing that info. But, by the same token, why do Dell and HP release detailed computer sales figures, where Apple gets to lump all computer sales together?

I'm not saying it's illegal or that it's not smart for them to hide their abysmal sales.

What I'm saying is that there's a double standard wherein Apple is punished for "missing" analysts expectations, despite 10s of millions of tablet sales, while the other vendors get a free ride for selling only an unknown fraction of Apple's number.

What I'm saying is that there's a double standard wherein Apple is punished for "missing" analysts expectations, despite 10s of millions of tablet sales, while the other vendors get a free ride for selling only an unknown fraction of Apple's number.

But Apple wasn't punished for tablet sales, and those other companies' current fortunes aren't dependent on tablet sales. Those companies should be pressed to provide details on their stuff that is critical to their business, e.g. if Roku were public (maybe it is, I have no idea) they would need to provide STB sales, where Apple TV is largely irrelevant to Apple, so they need not.

I'm not saying it's illegal or that it's not smart for them to hide their abysmal sales.

What I'm saying is that there's a double standard wherein Apple is punished for "missing" analysts expectations, despite 10s of millions of tablet sales, while the other vendors get a free ride for selling only an unknown fraction of Apple's number.

You think MS is getting a free ride on Wall Street? Are you kidding me?

And all the proof you need is the fact that there will be no penalty when MS refuses to reveal launch weekend sales numbers for the Surface Pro.

No penalty? Have you not been paying attention? What do you think MS' completely flat position is after years and years of growth. MS hasn't got a pass at all, and has indeed been continually on the opposite end. Despite continued strong growth for nearly a decade, no pass was given and any every weakness and non-massive-success offset all of that.

i'm predicting (barring horrific lawsuit or implosion), a banner year for MS wrt revenue and profit. Do i expect the stock to move at all? No. Wall Street wants record breaking numbers, and anything not doing that (including not reporting numbers) results in a hammered or belabored stock.

And all the proof you need is the fact that there will be no penalty when MS refuses to reveal launch weekend sales numbers for the Surface Pro.

What do you think would happen to Apple if they did the same for the next iPad launch?

You are amazingly confusing Wall Street with the Battlefront. This is tinfoil hat territory.

Wall Street is about one thing: Money, and the making thereof.

If a large group of investors was behaving in this sort of partisan manner, where Apple's earnings are inexplicably being mistreated, it would create an enormous investing opportunity for everyone else. You don't have to believe in efficient market theory; this is just elemental fundamentals of investing.

Moreover, there would be best sellers telling the average Joe (the one who only cares about how fat their retirement portfolio might become) how to take advantage of such partisan bias.

The other problem is, in the short term, markets can behave with irrationality. So what?

There was a longish period where Apple's stock had a P/E well above historical averages and it just went up with hardly any correction. Was that irrational as well? Or, are you one of those that cry conspiracy when gasoline prices go up and say nothing when they go down?

Look, Apple is at or near historical highs of valuation for any company in any era. The only counter-example I have heard of was someone's inflation adjusted valuation of IBM. Historically speaking, that sort of thing is fragile. Some investors may be under-rating Apple right now for that reason alone.

But, if the earnings growth continues, the stock price will rise. But, it is never cause and effect; you can't predict the day. In fact, stock prices, day to day, even month to month, seem to fit the statistical theory of random walks pretty well. So say prominent academics; index funds were invented because of this and they still outperform almost all stock "professionals" who are (frankly) the astrologers of our time.

I don't know of anyone in this forum who doesn't think Amazon is due for a major correction. Either there needs to be a really serious bump in profitability, or its price will collapse to something more normal.

Stocks have defied financial gravity for a while before. There was a fad called the "Nifty Fifty" where somebody decided a few key stocks were special and they were accordingly bid up past their fundamentals for a couple of years. It all ended in tears. Here's a too kind Wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifty_Fifty

Nowadays, of those still around, they go up and down like everyone else.

By that standard, OC, Linux and maybe WinCE are the big winners, because they are a strong force in the Embedded marketplace and those go damn near everywhere, from car braking systems to toaster ovens.

He means iPod. I think this post still applies, though. Apple had room to make mistakes, learn, figure stuff out, etc in the early mp3 player market. Up against a strengthening Android and a powerful Apple in tablets, Microsoft has a *lot* less room.

That said, I suspect they still have some room, and their hold on enterprise will be key.

You could say the same thing about the original iPhone--it was fixed after it was iterated.

Same for the surface--there is really nothing wrong with it, improvements will be just that.

Rather idealistic view isn't that? The point of any product is to make a profit. If no one buys the surface, it won't matter how intrinsically good it is, it will cease to exist. Good luck to them, but initial reviews point out one too many design flaws, such has ho-hum battery life, hot running temperatures, kickstand requiring a completely flat surface. It adds up to a complicated product, in comparison to the iPad, which people 'get'. I guess we'll all find out how well the surface sells soon enough.

None of those "design flaws" are deal breakers. You could make a similar list on ipad, claiming it was a "flawed" product, having too many design faults.

Which is my point. It will be improved--that doesn't mean it is flawed now.

Rather idealistic view isn't that? The point of any product is to make a profit. If no one buys the surface, it won't matter how intrinsically good it is, it will cease to exist

Very few tech products make money from day one. It usually takes a release or two. Windows 3.0, after all, was the first really successful Windows and Window 3.1 even more so. Nobody remembers WIndows 1.0 or Windows 2.0.

That said, you can still miss markets. The real question for the moment is volume more than profit. If Surface doesn't get into enough hands, it may never do. But, that's not a profit statement, rather a volume one for the next few years.

Excellent post. And not just tech products--tons of products. I can tell you have had lots of experience in industry.